Mansion House Project Is Revised; Commission Drops Plans for Review

The Martha's Vineyard Commission agreed last night, after a
brief discussion, to meet Tisbury Inn owners halfway - voting
unanimously to not require a fresh review of a reconstruction project
that stirred controversy in recent weeks because of design changes
following MVC approval of the project.

To sidestep another round of public hearings that inn owners Sherman
and Susan Goldstein say would delay the summer opening of the new
Mansion House, the Goldsteins agreed last night to abandon two of the
most disputed deviations from the approved project.

"I don't think you should have made the changes to the
building. I don't want to hold [construction] up unduly, but the
balconies really disturb me. It's not in keeping with Vineyard
Haven," commission member Kate Warner said Monday night at a land
use planning committee (LUPC) meeting on the changes. Ms. Warner was the
only commission member to not approve the reconstruction project last
April and the only member to vote against the owners' two
concessions last night.

"I'm not trying to be inflexible. No one wants to hold
you up and hold up the business community. But we are all going to live
with this [project] for the rest of our lives," Ms. Warner added
during the LUPC meeting.

Fire destroyed the anchor business on Tisbury's Main street in
December of 2001. With open expressions of sympathy for the
Goldsteins' loss, the MVC approved the 47,713 square-foot rebuild
project with unusual haste following a single night of public hearing
review last April. The speed of deliberations haunted some commission
members over the last month, and several commission members openly
regretted their treatment of the Mansion House this week.

"In hindsight, maybe we rushed. The town and the MVC
didn't give special treatment because it was the Goldsteins. We
worried about the impact on small business owners. I wish we'd had
another week [to review the reconstruction plans]. It was a very quick
process - for reasons I think were right," said commissioner
and Tisbury selectman Tristan Israel Monday night. Commission members
recently learned of discrepancies in elevation plans and floor plans
submitted the night of the public hearing last April, and this week
Boston architect David Galler reminded the MVC that the applicants
submitted only schematic drawings during the hearing.

"Maybe this is a lesson for us. You think something looks
great, but you don't look at the details," freshman
commissioner Katherine Newman, who was not on the board last April, said
Monday night.

Questions swirled around the hotel in December when Tisbury
architect James Weisman pointed out discrepancies between the approved
plans and construction drawings posted at the base of the hotel's
steel skeleton. A changed cupola, 487 added square feet of usable space
floor space, a number of balconies, French doors (instead of double-hung
windows) and a shed roof on a balcony facing the harbor were among the
modifications to final construction drawings submitted to the Tisbury
building inspector for a building permit.

The Goldsteins agreed Monday evening to eliminate three projecting
balconies on the Main street side of the building, replacing them with
Juliet balconies - a feature already incorporated at several
places into the Main street façade. They also agreed to forego
construction of a shed roof above an elongated fourth-floor balcony
facing the harbor.

During Monday's meeting, several commissioners asked the
Goldsteins to insert panes to break up the single sheet glass French
doors now prominent on the western side of the hotel. The full
commission abandoned that request last night after failing to reach
consensus.

"At no time did Sherm and I think we were not in complete
compliance. [We made these changes] after evaluating our ability to pay
our mortgage after the fire. Research indicates that rooms with
balconies sell. We wanted to meet our new financial obligations,"
Mrs. Goldstein said with an apology Monday night. The couple said they
have invested a $6.5 million loan, the equity of their home and their
property into the reconstruction of the inn.

Tisbury town officials joined the Goldsteins in defending the
changes as minor, referring to the new construction drawings as a
"slightly modified plan."

In a letter to the Goldsteins regarding his referral of construction
drawings to the MVC, Tisbury building inspector Kenneth Barwick
minimized the modifications saying: "Please be advised that to
date, this department finds the current plans specifications, proposed
uses and occupancies, intent and purposes are consistent with approvals
obtained through the Martha's Vineyard Commission and the zoning
board of appeals."

In another letter, Tisbury town administrator Dennis Luttrell urged
commissioners to not reopen the hearing, detailing a potential
logistical disaster for town municipal projects and Main street
shopkeepers.

"Concrete trucks and other material and supply trucks
unfortunately have to set up on Main street and Beach street during the
Mansion House construction. Any delay in the construction schedule of
the Mansion House could be problematic for construction crews working on
the various town projects on these roads. It is difficult to coordinate
all the crews desiring to be working in the same area at the same time.
There is simply not enough room to allow multiple crews in at the same
time," Mr. Luttrell said in a letter to the commission this week.

The Mansion House controversy forced commission staff to question
the applicants' and the town's understanding of the standard
post-approval process.

The commission approved a memorandum to all town officials two weeks
ago, clarifying what denotes a significant change to plans approved by
the MVC.

"It is understood that in the normal course of construction,
there may be very minor adjustments for structural, technical,
functional or other reasons. However, if there is any significant change
to the proposal, the project should be referred back to the commission
for consideration as a request for modification or amendment. A
significant change includes any increase to the total usable floor space
of each authorized use, any change in the intensity of the use, or any
significant change to the appearance of the building or the site,"
the document reads.

The MVC will also be clarifying exit requirements for applicants in
the coming months.

"We must do something that makes it more clear. Whether we
must go as far as to have plans sent back before the building permit is
issued, I'm not sure. We're also in trying to simplify our
process. I don't want to make it overly onerous on people because
there was one problem," MVC executive director Mark London said.

Last night's vote successfully averted the regional
agency's collision with Tisbury town leaders and an outcry from
the Main street business community.

"Hopefully we have a solution that improves the design
considerably and does not cause economic hardship for business owners in
the town," Mr. London said.